The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Hello Jim,
I live in Massapequa.
Lime Rock sounds like a great idea! Its going to be a busy weekend but I should be able to get there. I have never seen a real MKIV either so that will be a big thrill as well.
Hope to see you there!

Ed

 

What's Love Got to Do with It? - Tina Turner

Oh what’s love got to do, got to do with it?
What’s love but a second hand emotion?

*****
Now that we have reopened Pandora’s box, I’m wondering if we can avoid the same old slippery slope of name-calling and “in my opinion...” posts.

Personally, I wouldn’t know a P4 if one bit me on the ass. But, I do know a thing or two about logic and connecting the dots.

So why don’t we discuss creating an objective framework for reaching a consensus? Granted, being logical is not as much fun as calling someone a lying scumbag maggot eater. However, it does offer us some hope for getting over this thing.

The first step has got to be leaving the emotional baggage at the door. Like Tina sang, “What’s love got to do with it?” Therefore, debates such as whether:

1. Mr. Jim Glickenhaus is or is not a nice guy? (He is.)

2. Mr. David Piper is too wily of a trader to have ever sold Jim an original chassis or whether Mr. Piper really is that old merry prankster Ken Kesey come back to life? (Have you ever noticed the resemblance?)

3. Rich guys should buy old racecars and fix them up. (If they don’t, who will?)

4. Mr. Glickenhaus had a hidden agenda in posting all this on the Internet? (Who cares? They were great pictures.)

5. Those in Mr. Paul Skett’s camp are so blind with jealously that they can’t see straight? (Come on. It’s just a car!)

6. Mr. Glickenhaus really plans on taking this car and Sal with him to the Glickenhaus tomb or whether he has a secret plan to sell it to some Chinese investors who are thinking about going racing at Le Mans. (Now there is an interesting thought.)

7. Mr. Glickenhaus really did make a vow to his wife to stop racing when they got married, but very subtly didn’t mention driving racecars on the street? (Smart man, Mr. G.)

8. This Telaio group is bunch of crazed wackos whose goals include creating a new world order and who ritually engage in strange sex rites in famous museums? (Did I say Telaio? No way, I was misquoted. I meant Democrats.)

Again, invoking the sprit of Hunter S. Thompson and thinking of new ways to insult someone, while drinking martinis by the pitcher, can be a lot of fun, it just doesn’t get us any further up the road.

Thinking logically, thus, there appears to be only two ways of resolving this issue:

1. The positive approach is to come up with a consensus as to what is a “Real Ferrari Race Car.”

2. The negative approach is to determine what constitutes a replica of a Real Ferrari Race Car.

At the end of the day, Jim’s car is either a “real car” or a replica, and none of the emotional arguments will amount to even a warm bucket of spit. This car exists. I have seen it. I didn’t touch it, but I have seen it. The question is whether it belongs behind Door Number 1 or Door Number 2?

Being the positive type, I’m gonna take a whack at coming up with a definition for a Real Ferrari Race Car by using a hypothetical real-world example. (How about that for mixing things up?) Remember the 1999 F1 car that got sliced in half at Monterey last weekend? Let’s use this car as our test case with the following assumptions:

* When the factory sold us this car, everyone agrees that it was a Real Ferrari Race Car at that point.

* Somehow, somewhere, at some point, we decide to fix this car. There is too much money laying on the ground and too much history (This is a Schumacher car, yes?) to just pitch the car in the dumper.

* I don’t have a clue as to whether this chassis or what ever you call them now-a-days can be repaired. Let’s assume that the factory just happens to have a spare 1999 chassis lying around that we can use to fix our car.

* Alternately, let’s say that the spare chassis was from 1998 or 2000 or maybe the factory can make us a brand new one, but using 1999 specs.

* Let’s also assume that if this accident had happened during the 1999 race season, the factory would have repaired or replaced the original chassis and got the car back on the track.

So there you have it. We somehow get a new chassis and bolt on all the salvageable bits and pieces off our wreaked Real Ferrari Race Car and end up with a fresh car. But what is it? Do we still have a Real Ferrari Race Car or is it a replica?

Would it make any difference if, instead of getting a new-to-this-car chassis, we hauled the broken one down to Sal’s Fix-It Shop, and he somehow welded the damn thing back together again? We would still have the “original” chassis even though you’d have to be a world-class fool to drive the car in anger with a band-aid for a chassis.

The inescapable conclusion (to me anyway) is that the emphasis on “originality” is misplaced when it comes to racecars. An original racecar is a contradiction in terms because, once the car is raced, it is no longer original. Unlike production cars, racecars are built to last one race with only three possible outcomes: (1) the car finishes, (2) the car breaks down, or (3) the car crashes. Regardless of the outcome, the car is later torn apart to get ready for the next race. After repeating this rinse and wash cycle a few times, who can honestly say that any of the original car still remains?

My suggestion is that we use “Zeitgeist” as our benchmark instead of originality. Zeitgeist is one of those two-dollar words that means the “Sprit of the time.” Like porno, I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.

Getting back to our test case. I would call our rebuilt car a Real Ferrari Race Car even if the original “cut-in-two” chassis had been tossed and replaced with a brand new chassis. Will it ever be the same car that rolled out of the race shop many years ago? Of course not. But it does appear to be logical to say that it has enough Zeitgeist to be considered the real thing and not a replica.

If you are still with me, buckle your seat belt cause the rubber is fixin to hit the road. Let’s carry this test case a few steps further by assuming that:

1. Instead of fixing this 1999 racecar, the decision is made to scrap it. We pull off the bits and pieces, sell them on Ebay, and make a bunch of bucks. Because we don’t want the liability associated with selling a broken chassis, we just pitch the remains into the Dumpster and drink a toast to better days.

2. Later, Aqualung (you know the snot-nosed guy from Jethro Tull) finds all this aluminum and takes it to a recycling place, where a keen-eyed character just happens to recognize that Aqualung has discovered the remains to a 1999 Ferrari F1 racecar.

3. Forty years later, in 2044, Mr. Glickenhaus Jr. buys this broken chassis through a series cut outs and hires Sal, Jr. to rebuild the car.

Is the resulting car a Real Ferrari Race Car?

What if Mr. Glickenhaus Jr. is able to track down all the pieces we sold 40 years earlier on Ebay and use them to rebuild the car? Would this be enough Zeitgeist?

Does anybody really care? Indeed, has anyone hung in there long enough to read all this?

Your thoughts? Dale

A postscript: For a number of reasons, I have decided to migrate over to the subscriber section. See you there!

 

I find it amusing that half the people that have commented on the car weren't even born when it was built. You can not equate a late 1960s race car to a modern one. In today's world, a substantial part of the car is discarded after each race. 40 years ago, it was not.

Unless a substantial part of a car today consists of the same parts it last raced with, it's value is deminished. The more period parts, the greater the value. The fewer, the less the value. That's just common sense.

At some point, depending on how much of a car is recreated, the car can no longer be considered real. It becomes a replica. In the case of 846, I do not know exactly how much was there, and how much is new.

Exactly what parts of the car, as it exists today were part of the purchase? What does the sales agreement say they are? What photographic evidence exists, showing what was bought? What period parts were puchased, where, and with what documentation, in order the complete the car?

Things like this would help determine if the car should be considered real or a replica.

In my opinion, unless a substantial portion of the chassis (including suspension, etc) is period, along with a substatial portion of the motor, plus at least a part of the period coachwork, the car is a replica.

 

Doc.

Leave it to you to try and take a base discussion and move it to a higher plane.

I don't know, but Ferrari must have rules about what they will, and won't certify as original. I know this has been tossed around a million times. It's like Jim's car is the automotive version of the sim million dollar man.

"We can make it better, stronger, faster". But,just like the $6MM man, if Jim's car has most of the available original parts on it, then I say it is orginal, not a replica.

And, of course money has a lot to do with it. Who wouldn't rather have a $5MM car than a $750K car?

But, I have no vested interest, and find Jim (Via email only, haven't had the pleasure in person) to be a good, honest and reasonable guy, who's doing his best to bring great cars back to life.

 

dm:
Thanks for the compliment.

I don't know Jim, nor have I examined the car. I have nothing to gain or loose, except possibly upsetting some people with my opinion.

I try to take INDIVIDUAL people for what they say until they have proven to me that they aren't trustworthy....but due to the nature of society as it is today...and personal experiences, I remain a skeptic until I have seen ALL the evidence available.

As to the certification process itself (for example) I would want to see all documents and photographic evidence Mr.G has from the seller. I would then like to see the same kind of evidence tracing it back to Piper and all the people in between. I would also like to see the same from Ferrari to Piper himself.

At best, I could make a REASONABLE judgement, based on my involvement of 35 years with classic cars, and the fact that I have PhDs in mechanical engineering and theoretical physics. That still wouldn't make my judgement absolute fact; it would only be an educated opinion.

There are probibly only a handfull of classic cars in the entire world in which establishing absolute fact is possible.

 

That is how the world goes around mate. Some take the risks and fail big time, others make it ... and others like you and I never take that huge risk.

BUT I dispute that Jim bought this car intending to make the find that he made. In the readings I have read and Jim's information (that he kindly sent all the way to Australia) he bought from Piper #0003 ... knowingly and accepting that this would be as close as he either would get to owning and running a P4.

It was not until the full restoration (which anybody with any knowledge of race cars would always implement ... if they want to stay alive) that questions started being asked ...

I also think you have Jim completely wrong ... or maybe you yourself view cars differently and think of them as investments ... and don't want to be honest with yourself about it ... ?

All the threads that I have read about Jim, himself or by others indicates a guy who likes to drive cars and play with them just like me ... remember he has been into these cars since he was a young chap ... just like me. The difference is that he has the funds to play at a much higher level. Good on him I say, because if I was in his shoes I'd be making the most of it too.

Also we classic car people are always looking for something special on our cars, something to make them unique and even more exciting. I am presently restoring an Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV ('71) and would love nothing more than to find something wierd on it that I 'had' to trace back to the factory and find that it was some sort of prototype ... but alas it appears not to be, just a bog standard normal 1750 series 2 Coupe.

Do I look for these things for potential profit ... not at all, just to make it more interesting and something to talk to fellow enthusiasts about. Even if my car was some sort of prototype ... er, it isn't going to make much of a difference of this sort of cars value anyway ... but gee I would enjoy that something special about MY car

Give Jim a break ... yep he has stacks of money, but I judge people on the more important things. Jealousy is such a lousy emotion ... just like Jim I have a great family and can understand and share those important moments that he ocassional discusses. Cars are just cars ... some are fast, some slow and some rarer and more expensive ... but good cars are fun and exciting!

Pete

 

The Legend of the Famous $4 Picture Frame

 

Psk: I posted the statement below in another thread.

I don't know Jim, nor have I examined the car. I have nothing to gain or loose, except possibly upsetting some people with my opinion.

I try to take INDIVIDUAL people for what they say until they have proven to me that they aren't trustworthy....but due to the nature of society as it is today...and personal experiences, I remain a skeptic until I have seen ALL the evidence available.

As to the certification process itself (for example) I would want to see all documents and photographic evidence Mr.G has from the seller. I would then like to see the same kind of evidence tracing it back to Piper and all the people in between. I would also like to see the same from Ferrari to Piper himself.

At best, I could make a REASONABLE judgement, based on my involvement of 35 years with classic cars, and the fact that I have PhDs in mechanical engineering and theoretical physics. That still wouldn't make my judgement absolute fact; it would only be an educated opinion.

There are probibly only a handfull of classic cars in the entire world in which establishing absolute fact is possible.

I am hoping the car IS real, and based on what I have seen SO FAR, have stated that I believe it is. Others say it is not. Perhaps NONE of us should have stated an opinion untill we have seen ALL the documentation from ALL parties

 

True.

I definitely believe it is after the information Jim sent me ... plus what since has been stated.

To be 100% honest the fact that it maybe genuine does not really matter to me (er, okay to be honest it does add something to the feeling of being part of #0846's rebirth) ... what I was always fascinated by was being able to see under the skin of one of these cars ... and that even if it was a Piper copy we were able to do, because no other copy is as close to an original P4 (note not a P3/4).

Pete

 

Does this include me? Please?

During the 60s I followed motorcycle racing, not sports cars. But I have to say that my recollection is very different from yours. Before any major race, a walk through the pits showed parts thrown everywhere, people working through the wee hours of the night. Cigarette, coffee, beer, and who knows what else was the order of the day as tuners stuggled to prep bikes on a purely antidotal basis.

The 60s represented a great leap forward in racing as pure horsepower gave way to aerodynamics and chassis tweaking. Bacause nobody knew what they were doing, the whole process became one of trial and error, along with a generous supply of duct tape. Tuning was done on the fly and sometimes in the back of a van while hurling down the super slab to the next race.

Maybe the car guys were more organized, but I doubt it. The simple truth was that nobody ever dreamed that someday people would be obsessing over whether this wheel or that bolt were on that car the night it crashed and burned. All they could think about was how much work it would take to get it ready for the next race.

Fine, but I don't think that the value of Jim's car is the concern here; or at least, I haven't heard anyone mention this issue. The hot issue is whether his car is a real car or a replica.

I believe that it is common knowledge that the only "original" P4 left in the world today is Mr. Lawrence Stroll's P4 that was on the green at Pebble. All the other cars were crashed, rebodied, chopped up or whatever. Again, back then, who knew?

But you are headed in the right direction. The problem is that I don't think that you can ever empirically define that "point" at which one becomes something else. At the end of the day, you have to look at the total record make a call.

Mr. Glickenhaus has shared all this, and more, with many of us. He has accumulated a preponderance of evidence that supports his claim. The seller, Mr. Piper, has chosen to remain silent. If indeed he still owns chassis #0846, a simple press release along with his documentation would put all this to bed. Again, for whatever reason, Mr. Piper has not shared with us his side of the story. So by default, you'd have to side with Mr. Glickenhaus because he, at least, has laid his cards on the table.

To each his own, but I find your guideline somewhat lacking. What difference does it make if a car has 40-year old shocks? Once again, I think that based on the prepondrance of evidence, you have to give Mr. Glickenhaus the benefit of the doubt. He has stated his case. However, expect for emotional outbursts that speculate on the intent of the parties involved, no one has come forth with any proof that Mr. Glickenhaus is wrong.

Until someone can come forth with proof to the contrary, it's looking more and more like Jim's car is the real thing.

Say good night Gracie.

DrTax

 

Dale: attaboy

 

Absolutely. The only difference is nowadays we have lighter materials that do not last as long.

dretceterini is smoking something if he thinks that Ferrari went to Le Mans or any race with exactly the same engine in the car (in its same state) as when they built the car. We have many period photos showing these cars (and earlier cars) having the usual strip down and rebuild just like a modern race car. Thus the engines would have been rebuilt, maybe put in different cars or even rested for a spare engine.

We even have 100% proof that #0846 ran with different types of gearboxes as Ferrari developed a new one!

Even Piper has more engines than he has chassis'

It is only the amature club racer that does not ... and this car was raced by the Ferrari works team not PSk's weekend warriors

And that is exactly what the 140+ pages that Jim has shown many people is.

The only thing missing is why #0846 chassis was reused to become Piper's #0003?.

But as we have reasonably strong proof that chassis #0003 that Piper sold Jim is actually #0846 (it is a P3/4 chassis not a P4 as all other Piper chassis' are, plus we have evidence from people that repaired #0846's chassis that they recognise the repair) then we can follow the path of #0846 as made by Ferrari directly to #0003 as made by Piper's gang.

Thus maybe Dr you should take your own advice and make your opinions AFTER reading all the facts. Many of us have read the 140+ pages and thousands of internet posts and made our OWN opinions.

Pete
ps: Unfortunately we know have to listen to you saying that our opinion is wrong or not otherwise right ... because it is not yours, or because you have not read of the information we have. Give me a break ... we can read and we have read your posts. We have also read (unlike you I believe) all the other threads on this site ...

Please do the research, this has been discussed for a very long time and is all there.

 

No I do not agree at all with this. This is a view of cars that does not relate to a car having maintenance and a history.

Take car X. It left the factory with chassis X1, engine X2 and body X3 to be raced by Team Z.

After it's first race it aquired engine Y2 because engine X2 sh@t itself and it was beyond rebuild state.

The car is still 100% car X as campaigned by race Team Z, just has a new engine. Big deal it is still referred to and entered as car X.

Car X then has a big accident and chassis X1 was damaged. A new chassis was bought and replaced orginal ... and car X kept racing on.

Thus history of car X (which is still the same car is):
1. Made in 19?? by somebody.
2. 19?? - 19??. Raced by Team Z.
3. 19??. Engine X2 replaced with Y2 due to failure at event ...
4. 19??. Chassis was replaced due to big accident at event ...
5. 19??. Sold to Team W and colour changed from Red to Blue.

Thus as we can see car X still survives and races in historic meetings. It no longer has the original chassis or engine but as the history is completely known the cars complete story can be told. It is 100% an original car of its type it just has more stories than it's sister car that went straight from 'somebodies' factory to a musuem and never turned a wheel OR won anything.

Pete

 

My point is that a substantial part of the car is not period. Modifications, rebuilds and changes that were done 40 years ago are one thing; the same things done in the last couple of years are not.

 

What things were done in the last couple of years?

Jim has rebuilt the car as a coupe ... using an original old stock body shell.
The rest is simply what happens when a car is restored, ie. the paint is removed as is the rust and then some metal welded in and then it is all painted again.

Jim has had some things recast ... by Ferrari and the wheel manufacturers ... but has kept the originals.

As far as I can tell everything else is period and how it could have rolled out of the Ferrari factory ... (note: #0846 was a spider when Ferrari built it).

BUT I am pretty sure the following are not the same:
1. Air inside any tube that required rewelding.
2. Primer and top coats of paint.
3. Oil seals and gaskets.
4. Oil itself ... and ofcourse the water in the radiators.
5. Lets not forget the fuel and fuel cells.
6. Trim (? ... pretty sure this is new).
7. Tyres and the air inside them .
8. Suspension bushes ... I hope!
9. Wheel bearings (and any other bearing) ... I hope!
10. Exhaust gas
11. Fire extinguisher.
12. Wheel putting on and removing hammer ... lost at Le Mans by Chris.
13. Probably the bad smell left by Chris Amon when he jumped out of the burning car in a hurry

This car is not #0856 which still lives with the body first installed by the Ferrari factory (or though I bet more of that has been replaced than we know ??) ... but otherwise appears to be a genuine P3/4 Ferrari that has had a FAR more interesting life than the others. Same can be said for some people I know ... does that make them a replica, because they have led a few different directions in life, while they set about finding themselves?

One can not invent a time machine and return to the factory forecourt and steal the car from Enzo Ferrari ...

Pete
ps: I would much prefer to own a historic race car that has proven successful history than a never raced time machine. One is just a car, the other has earnt its place in the history books. Ofcourse there are a few cars that have won and still survived in great condition ... like Jim's GT40, but bugger all serious race cars.

 

Who said Ferrari didn't make changes during the time the car competed? What does this have to with the recreation of parts done in the last few years that are now on the car?

I'll make it simple. As far as I'm concerned, unless at least 75% of the mechanics and 50% of the coachwork car are things that were on the car during the time it raced (period replacement parts and changes, done at that time, are fine), the car is a replica.

To be considered a original restored car rather than a replica, 75% of the ENTIRE car must have been there during the period the car was raced.

There are far too many cars on which just about the only thing that was on the car at the time it actually did run is the chassis plate.

People can set whatever standards they wish, but these are MY guidelines.

I have seen every post on this thread, and the majority of other posts in other threads. I have CLEARLY stated that I have not seen all the evidence some of the others have seen. I have also clearly stated that based upon what I have seen, I believe the car to be real, but I would like to view the rest of the evidence. What is the problem?

 

Er, you did, or implied that Ferrari did not make changes to the car with this comment:

I just said that I do not believe Ferrari raced all their cars with exactly the same engine, body, gearbox, uprights, etc. ... by my comment referring to the fact that we have all seen period race preparation photos when the P Ferrari's were in just as many pieces as if you were watching a modern Le Mans team prepare for the race.

Well the car is a race car, and like any machine parts age and become unusable ... unless you want to crash and completely destroy the car. Thus you have a choice, either treat the car like a painting and just look at it, OR replace parts with new parts (just like Ferrari would have done all those years ago). Thus Jim had Ferrari (not just anybody) recast the suspension uprights and had Campari (sp? ... whoever made the original wheels) recast the wheels for him.

Why because he wants to drive the car.

Now he did not have to tell us that, he could just have lied (like I imagine most of the other P Ferrari owners have and the owners of all the racing Ferraris like the GTO's, LM's, etc. ... honestly do you really believe they are all using their original engine block, stub axles, etc. ... I don't) and led us believe that yes indeed they are the original parts. Saying that Piper has remade many parts for these cars to ... to keep them racing. So again I return to my continuous history angle.

Lets talk about Piper's 250 LM. The green one.

Would you call that car an original or genuine LM?

Well I would, most definitely. BUT that car has had suspension changes to improve the cars performance, wider wheels and most of the time it races with a fibre glass body.

BUT the most important part is when you trace the history of that LM, you start with a chassis number at the Ferrari gates and no matter what modification has been made to that car ... you end up with the SAME car and that car is the LM that Piper owns.

It would not matter if it had a 6 litre Chev engine replacing the Ferrari engine. It is still the same car, just it's history would note:

19?? - Ferrari engine replaced with Chev 6 ltr v8 for X reasons.

Does that make it an original LM ... ofcourse not, but it is the SAME car.
Are any race cars original to how they were made ... ofcourse NOT. Any car is just a machine and parts are replaced as required.

Some cars have bad luck and accidents make this process more necessary, others seem to sneak through and amazingly retain say 75% as they were made ... BUT NO CAR IS 100% as it left any factory, NONE.

Well this is where I will always disagree ... because you would then consider Piper's LM a replica, which it is 100% not. Even if it had a Chev engine in it, it is NOT a replica, but a LM with a Chev engine. Big difference.

A replica is a copy. Jim's car is NOT a copy it is the modern form of #0846. It has the same chassis and just about all it's history can be traced back to when it left the Ferrari gates ... that makes it 100% #0846 to me.

Is it original ... NO ... but then neither is any other car. Is it as original as #0856, NO ... never said it is and most importantly neither has Jim.

True but this is not the case ... and again if a car via continuous history ends up only having the chassis plate it started with, then it is still the same car!. Original ... miles NOT, but via tracing its history, every single modification can be explained and thus the same car was campaigned on the race track, etc. just in different specifications.

Fair enough, but I would stick to boring road cars if that is how you want to play the game. Thus you will be on the look out for major garage queens that have never had a thrill in their lives ... oh how Enzo would scoff at that attitude (I believe).

It is not for me to supply you that evidence, only Jim can do that, but I suggest that instead of the attacking nature of your threads, you like the rest of us HELP Jim unravel the mysteries, what ever the answer would have been.

I guess to be honest, I have a problem with people constantly going on about originality of (especially) race cars with out seemingly understanding the racing (and maintenance) game ... and how the race car is just a tool to win races, not the be and end all that they become when, as P Ferraris have, they become collectible. One can guarantee that the Ferrari mechanics and drivers of the day, simply looked at the P Ferraris as just cars and if they had been slow and uncompetitive ... absolute heaps of cr@p!!!

I'm absolutely positive if you asked Chris Amon what he throught of #0846, that he would state that it was a piece of **** that tried to kill him.

Also if you take my Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV (when it finishes it's very long restoration) it will be 100% original, but with a completely rebuilt engine, gearbox, differential (using new components throughout). Rebuilt suspension, etc. New trim, etc. BUT where possible parts of the car NOT designed to be treated like replaceable items will be maintained. But I am fncked if I am going to restore a car with its original suspension bushes, burnt valves and worn rings, etc. just so some fool can consider it original. Alfa Romeo designed all those parts to be replaced to maintain the health and driving fun on the car ... not to piss people off who do not like to maintain cars.

Pete

 

Well, everyone is certainly entitled to define their own guidelines, knock yourself out!

Keep in mind however.... with your stated guidelines, at least 75% of the historic racecars on the grid even at a very strict venue like the monterey historics or Goodwood Revival are to be "replicas" as per your guidelines. If organizers were to apply your guidelines when it came to evaluating race applications there would be no grids! If the market valued these cars based on your guidelines, NONE would ever be raced again because if there was an accident it would dictate that the original car once repaired is now a replica. Who is going to race their $10 million GTO if they know that an accident may result in it becoming a $200K replica after being repaird!?!?!?

Also, you say that repairs or replacement of parts done back in the day is ok and does not convert the original car to being a replica, but such repairs done in more recent times would make the car a replica. So how do you apply this to cars with a continuous race history? Many historic cars have been racing since day one. If the chassis was replaced on a '70 917 in 1972... seems you would still call it an original car. What about the chassis being replaced in 1977? 1985? 1998? When is the magic cutoff time?

I would anticipate an opinion that such repairs done by the factory would count as original and those done after the car retired from top level factory competition would not. What about cars sold as customer race cars by the factory? Porsche did not run an official factory team in 1971, they had two quasi factory efforts that got factory support... Were repairs these teams did ok or are all those cars now replicas too? How about the 917s that Vasek Polak got and raced?

I think the issue relative to the Porsches is pertinent in making Petes point. The 908, 910 and 917s were made from very thin tubing with light weight being the critical factor, not durability. The chassis were VERY prone to cracking under stress. Porsche even built them to be pressurized internally and had a pressure guage setup. If the pressure went to zero.... the chassis had cracked and they would replace it. During 1969 and 1970 Porsche would replace the chassis sometimes after every race! At one point they even built 917 chassis out of magnesium tubing to save an extra little bit of weight... and it was even more brittle (they didnt tell the drivers.... who were already pretty nervous about the flimsy construction).

So.... its pretty unlikely that any 917 out there is running a totally original chassis. Are they all replicas?

Terry

 

Pete

Let's keep it between the lines, eh? We all feel passionate about these old cars. I'm hoping that we can look at this objectively.

This is where I start to separate from the chassis guys. There appears to be this fixation with a bunch of tubing that I find troubling. Again, go back to my 1999 F1 hypo. If this car gets its chassis replaced, which it probably should, does this mean that it is no longer a real car? I think not.

Right on, Bro. This is Zeitigeist! The only problem with Jim's car is that nobody paid any attention back in the day. I had one guy tell me that the proper way to look at a brand new racecar was to assume that you had just pushed it over a cliff. If you ever got to race it, this was a bonus.


Dr. Schaller

It depends upon your objective. If you are building a museum car, I would agree with you. But if you are going to drive it, the simple truth is that many of these cars and motorcycles were dangerous even as they rolled out of the shop. Once again, designers and tuners did not have CAD systems back in the 60s. Most of them had never even heard of wind tunnels. They were trying a bit of this and a bit of that. If the result didn't toss the poor driver on his ass, it was considered an improvement.

Again, I find this reliance on originality to be misplaced. Not only did no one keep any records, but there never was any attempt at maintaining originality. The only rule was creative cheating, i.e., it's okay so long as you don't get caught. For thier day, these were flat out racecars. They lived and died for one purpose only -- to win races.

I'll go back to Mr. Stroll's P4 that was at Pebble. It is supposed to be the only "original" P4 left in the world. And, it is certainly a beautiful car. In fact, the biggest complaint is that it is too beautiful. This car never looked this good back in the day.

What I'm suggesting is a different standard other than originality. Pete, and others, are saying that providence is the key. While this standard would address my 1999 hypo case, it leaves us hanging when looking at Jim's car because unfortunately there are gaps. For reasons of his own, Mr. Piper has chosen not to fill in the gaps, which is certainly his right to do so. So until someone steps forward with more objective information, all we have is the evidence that Mr. Glickenhaus has provided.

Your thougths? Dale

 

Jim's going to drive it and enjoy the hell out of it.

 

Great post, Dale. And, exactly the issue: if we could all agree on a standard for what constitutes "real" vs. "replica" (or "continuation" or whatever) then there would be no debate.

 

Mr Nye is implying a lot but isn't stating anything. I'm curious to know what mr Sparling has or hasn't said to him or others about Mr G's P4 not being 0846, as mr Nye is implying.

 

Dr. Schaller, that "status and wealth" goes in the same 6' x 6' hole as the big box, man.

I won't respond to Replica any longer, being one of those "Fchat arse-kissers"..man, that's pretty strong. Hope to have the pleasure of a face to face, sometime.

I'll show you how a Texan would handle that.

*golf clapping for Napolis' posts*

 

Speedy: Huh? Where did I say anything about kissing arse? Status and wealth don't mean a thing to me personally, but no matter how much oppertunity presents itself, whithout the financial ability to act upon it, it is irrelevent....but I've already said that..and until someone goes into the big box (as you put it) status and wealth DO matter to some, if not most people. At least half of the supposed car people I have met know little or nothing about the cars they own. They only own them because they can, and because of teh status it conveys upon them. I repetedly said I do not know Mr.G, his agenda or his motivation. In no way is this an attack onn my part upon MrG, his character, or his car. It is simply a search on my part to obtain the TRUTH.

PSK: My goal is truth. That's the ONLY reason I care if the car is real or not.

 

I was refering to Mr. P4Replica's post on the UK site, in which he paints us all with a very broad brush.

No problems with your posts. You are late to the arguements here

I have reviewed most of the documentation, as well as following all the posts by Jim G. since the beginning....

I can't continue to post here....the skeptics have worn me out ... I'm going for a drive......